Re: About LMT's -- nice article

Following up on JustAnotherDBA, 17 Feb 2003:

> Just looked at the article real briefly, but seemed like a good article
> overall.

Of course it is.

> Little mistakes like LMTs coming out in 8i and not 8.0 seem
> trivial .

But they can cause a lot of problems when the latest "this-release-only-expert" comes in waving it above the head and pointing the finger at the current dba who is stuck on 8.0. I've seen it happen so many times it's not even funny. That's why I raise the flag when I see these version errors in articles. They are not trivial. They are not caused by the authors either, in most cases.

> Also, to me it would seem that LMTs advantages are obvious (is
> that much encouragement really needed?), especially when also considering
> they are the new default in 9i.
>

Of course their advantages are obvious. What is NOT obvious is that LMTs only became stable enough for production purposes with the appearance of 8.1.7.4 patch level. That is NOT that long ago.

Production dbas have to worry about keeping systems running. That's hard to do with whizz-bang stuff that is not stable. They are a very conservative lot, and IMHO with very good reasons! Goes for ANY software BTW, not just Oracle.

> We plan on moving several databases to LMTs and 9iR2 this year which are
> currently running 8.1.6. and 8.1.7 versions using DMTs.

Note: you are NOT in 9i nor using LMT. Like I claimed many people aren't. Nothing to do with their ability to grasp 9i or 10i concepts. Everything to do with a stack of other things, among them stability.

While we are on the subject of stability: why did you wait for 9ir2 instead of planning for 9ir1? Stability/compatibility, eh?

Why not wait a few months more and go for 10i, with all the whizz-bang advantages promoted by Oracle? I'm sure you could well forget about all those niggly little boring dba things you have to worry about now? Stability/compatibility again, eh?

QED.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam